A pretty good movie. The theme is similar to "Stranger than fiction" but this one is more deep and serious affair. I looked it up on IMDB after watching and found an interesting fact: the actress who plays the lead role is also the screen writer ! Smart woman ...

Chopra is either delusional or a fraud. I wish he was just the former, but I think he is the latter. Early on in his life, he seems to have realized that the Western world is ripe to be duped by his brand of Mysticism Lite, so he moved in for the jackpot.

^ I see no reason to consider him either delusional or fraudulent. He's a popularizer who tries to simplify the message a bit for the masses, not in itself a bad thing. Popularizers tend to be targets because of envy of their commercial success; Carl Sagan was a competent scientist (per my brother who was a friend and colleague of his) who also was ripped because he was able to cash in while simplifying things for the TV audience.

^ I see no reason to consider him either delusional or fraudulent. He's a popularizer who tries to simplify the message a bit for the masses, not in itself a bad thing. Popularizers tend to be targets because of envy of their commercial success; Carl Sagan was a competent scientist (per my brother who was a friend and colleague of his) who also was ripped because he was able to cash in while simplifying things for the TV audience.

Click to expand...

Wrong tree, I'm afraid. I've got no problem with Chopra being a popularizer, but a big problem with what he is popularizing and how he is doing it.

I adored Carl Sagan. Your brother is right, he was a competent scientist who got ripped for being a popularizer of science rather than doing the lab/theoretical/experimental work that scientists do. That perception of Sagan was only accurate regarding his later years. Before Sagan became Mr. Science, he had several important contributions in astronomy, notably regarding the greenhouse effect on Venus.

There is a big difference though: Sagan's populism was for scientific, i.e., properly verifiable, things. Deepak Chopra popularizes a warped and cherry-picked version of eastern culture. I grew up in India, and have a fairly good grasp of the things that Chopra appropriates from the culture and wraps into his own clarified bullshit. On related matters, it is entertaining to see people like Leonard Mlodinov or Sam Harris or Michael Shermer debate Chopra, but therein lies the problem. By associating their names with him, they give Chopra much-needed credibility. With them, he is an unusual spiritual thinker. Without them, he is just a fool.

^ I see no reason to consider him either delusional or fraudulent. He's a popularizer who tries to simplify the message a bit for the masses, not in itself a bad thing. Popularizers tend to be targets because of envy of their commercial success; Carl Sagan was a competent scientist (per my brother who was a friend and colleague of his) who also was ripped because he was able to cash in while simplifying things for the TV audience.

Click to expand...

What Carl Sagan said was within the confines of known science. He had also published many papers before he took on the popularizer role.

Deepak Chopra was also a successful doctor before he turned into a popularizer. But he does not confine himself to science. He injects spirituality and mysticism into his work and uses words like "quantum" in inappropriate situations. That does not mean that a holistic approach is not good. He also talks about many useful things. But he has ventured into domains where he cannot be rigorous about facts. When electrical activity in the brain was noticed after death, he proclaimed that evidence for the soul had been found. It turned out that rats also show the same "evidence." It is basically the residual electricity discharging through the neural circuits. For him, just the news was enough to talk about the soul.

He has done a great job of picking pieces of Eastern philosophies and packaging them for Western consumption. Many have done that before him, but as a doctor, he has to be held to a higher scientific standard compared to a Swami or a Yogi who has simply studied scripture all his life as part of a monastic tradition and has not had exposure to modern education.

Che Guevara was a physician too but it has little to do with his career of political activism. Likewise Chopra, who's really well into a second career that his little to do with science. Sure, he uses and abuses scientific jargon at times, but what philosopher or religious zealot doesn't. That he deviates from standard eastern dogma is immaterial; his own explanation of things is not necessarily any less legitimate than anyone else's.

Likewise Chopra, who's really well into a second career that his little to do with science. Sure, he uses and abuses scientific jargon at times, but what philosopher or religious zealot doesn't.
That he deviates from standard eastern dogma is immaterial; his own explanation of things is not necessarily any less legitimate than anyone else's.

Click to expand...

Legitimate from what standpoint? From the point of view of a man's right to freedom of speech? From the point of view of a man's lawful right to his own livelihood in whatever manner he chooses? Yes, of course. It is his right to say and do whatever he wants. It is mine to claim that he is, nevertheless, either fraudulent or delusional, and that his views have no basis in observable reality.

He doesn't have one. He has what can only be described as an obfuscation. In a less civilized but altogether more accurate vein, one may say that Deepak Chopra is full of shit.

sureshs said:

He injects spirituality and mysticism into his work and uses words like "quantum" in inappropriate situations.

Click to expand...

Yes, he routinely invokes quantum theory and non-local phenomena and claims that these prove the existence of the soul or the infinite or some silly thing like that. He has shown repeatedly, under scrutinizing questions from physicists, that he does not understand even a whit of quantum mechanics yet he shamelessly appropriates terms from it, with the deliberate aim of misleading the public. And the public is, mostly, ready to be misled.

^ Well, no, strictly speaking you have a right to BELIEVE but no right to CLAIM that a person is fraudulent or delusional unless the majority of the evidence supports you. As religious or philosophical beliefs have always been held excempt from a diagnosis of delusional, and expression of religious/philosohical beliefs are not considered fraud, you would have no legal protection and could be cited for slander or defamation.

^ Well, no, strictly speaking you have a right to BELIEVE but no right to CLAIM that a person is fraudulent or delusional unless the majority of the evidence supports you. As religious or philosophical beliefs have always been held excempt from a diagnosis of delusional, and expression of religious/philosohical beliefs are not considered fraud, you would have no legal protection and could be cited for slander or defamation.

Lincoln! Didn't think I would like it, but was pulled in from the very beginning.

Thought it might have been 5-10 minutes too long, but otherwise now on my allt-time favorite list. Daniel Day Lewis will win best actor

Click to expand...

Agreed. The ending had that same last minute re-edit feel of Spielberg's A.I. It looked like he originally planned to end the film with Lincoln leaving the White House for Ford's Theatre.

Lewis' performance was outstanding. I was really surprised by the casting of Sally Field as well as the portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln. I also couldn't help but notice how much of "Saving Private Ryan's" score was re-used in this movie.

Watched Dark Knight Rises on my new tv last night and it was pretty good. Not my favorite of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies but decent none the less. Picked up The Bourne Legacy today but have not watched it.

I saw the human centipede 2 last night, it wasn't that great. I preferred the first one more. The main character is just really messed up and he doesn't even talk in the entire movie. It was gory but it was also really goofy at the same time. Also the picture quality is kind of weird in terms of colors used, its very bland maybe to tone down the blood and gore.

Thursday night was Great Expectations, which apart from an impressive cast was decidedly meh.

Tonight was The Hobbit, which was a lot of fun but felt like a filmmaker compelled to do something out of loyalty rather than passion. A very pleasant return to Middle Earth, and a very very good film too, but it just doesn't have the magic that the LOTR trilogy had.

Finally watched The Hunger Games to understand all the hype with the books and movie. Wow this is how adults entertain our youth today…by glorifying kids killing kids. Can’t wait for more sequels, prequels, reality shows.

Finally watched The Hunger Games to understand all the hype with the books and movie. Wow this is how adults entertain our youth today…by glorifying kids killing kids. Can’t wait for more sequels, prequels, reality shows.

Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, they didn't really tailor it to the ones who did not read the books, I haven't. And I felt lost when I watched it, I was like wth is going on...?

Agreed. The ending had that same last minute re-edit feel of Spielberg's A.I. It looked like he originally planned to end the film with Lincoln leaving the White House for Ford's Theatre.

Lewis' performance was outstanding. I was really surprised by the casting of Sally Field as well as the portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln. I also couldn't help but notice how much of "Saving Private Ryan's" score was re-used in this movie.

Click to expand...

The whole movie seemed put together and scrambled at the last minute.

Don't get me wrong it was above decent, but it did not gel. Some of the performances were Oscar worthy.

Don't get me wrong it was above decent, but it did not gel. Some of the performances were Oscar worthy.

Tommy Lee Jones stole the show!

Click to expand...

I disagree. I thought 95% of the movie was outstanding. I just think that the ending was pieced together in a way that made if obvious there was a different ending point. Besides that I think this was an excellent movie.

The latter movie was underwhelming, but the first two were more interesting. One's a war film about some Germans and Americans based on the periphery of the Battle of the Bulge, and the other ('Comfort and Joy') is a wry comedy about a radio DJ who's entangled in a dangerous dispute between Italian families who are at each others throats over territory to sell...ice cream. It's going to take a hell of an Xmas film to supplant the enjoyable lunacy of a comedy-drama that sets a war over gelato at Christmas time, as 'Comfort and Joy' is probably now my favourite holiday picture. In order, I'd rate the films 3/5, 4/5, and 2/5.

Political hardball -- remarkable how little things have changed. Kudos to Spielberg for having the guts to shoot an 1860s indoor film with the lousy lighting of that era. Well acted but needed a little more juice to justify 2 1/2 hours.